Modern Family
USA Today carries a fascinating article on child-rearing gay couples drawn from a newly published book by Abbie Goldberg, an assistant professor of psychology at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. The book is entitled Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children: Research on the Family Life Cycle. Goldberg contends that “The sexual orientation of a parent has really little to do with their parenting,” and says that parenting gay couple have more in common with parenting heterosexual couple than not. In particular, she claims:
- The transition to parenthood is similar for both homosexual couples and heterosexual couples.
- Children of gay couples don’t differ from their peers raised by heterosexual couples in terms of their mental health, self-esteem, life satisfaction, social skills or number of friends.
These conclusions seem somewhat non-intuitive to me, especially as other research has established that homosexual marriages are more likely to result in divorce than heterosexual ones – and we know that children from failed marriages definitely do worse, on average, than children from successful ones. Certainly in Norway and Sweden, after a decade of legal gay marriage, it was found that gay male marriages were 50% more likely to end within 8 years and gay female marriages were 167% more likely to fail (note: Sweden has only recently legalised actual marriage but has a legal equivalent in place for a decade)
[As an aside, the reason the authors suggest for this gender discrepancy is that male homosexual long-term relationships take on a hierarchal dimension with well-delineated roles in the relationship, whereas lesbian long-term relationships tend to be networked and roles are not as defined. This is definitely in keeping with the observed nature of male/male (structured and hierarchal) and female/female (networked and fluid) relationships.]
Advocates for gay marriage will immediately point out that, in US states that have legalised gay marriage, the divorce rate has gone down. This is to do with the same phenomenon that produced the absurdly low gay male divorce rate of 1% three years after the UK legalised gay marriage in 2005 – an effect I call first pass. Essentially, what is happening is that all of the gay couples with already established serious long term relationships are getting married. Obviously, these relationships are substantially more stable than most marriages, including heterosexual ones. It is therefore not surprising that the initial effect of legalising gay marriage should result in a decreased divorce rate. It would have been surprising if it hadn’t.
The experience of Norway and Sweden represents what will start happening a decade down the line. In the US states that have legalised gay marriage, I would expect the divorce rate to rise back to it’s previous level and possibly beyond. I say possibly because the evidence would also suggest that marriage is less attractive to gay couples than heterosexual ones (only 6.3% of gays in the Nederlands are married) . The UK has recently experienced a 55% decrease in gay marriages. It may well be that only gay couples who establish a long term relationship will contemplate marriage, although the European data suggests otherwise.
This apparent conflict between the stability of gay marriage and the well-being of their children lead me to wonder about Prof. Goldberg’s research. I was interested to know how she came to her conclusions. Unfortunately I do not have access to her book, so I had to make do with the research papers she has published, which, presumably, is from where she took the data for her book. Most of the papers she has published consist of structured interviews rather than hard data. This does not render her studies invalid, but does mean that most of her data has been subjectively interpreted through her own world view. You are not going to find criminal conviction rates or mental health diagnosis data in her book, you are just going to get her informed, but subjective assessment of how balanced children of gay couples are.
Without hard data, it is difficult to make any sort of informed comment about her conclusions. I wasn’t there during the interviews.I don’t even know if Prof. Goldberg can form a reasonably objective opinion, although her studies seem at least plausible. Unfortunately studies of this nature lend themselves to all sorts of bias, even when the conductor of the study is maintaining reasonable objectivity.
One huge flaw in the contention that gay parenting and heterosexual parenting are similar in effectivity is the difference in effort required to obtain children. Put simply, a gay couple has to be considerably more committed to children in order to become parents. For most heterosexual couples child production is relatively effortless (settle all you mothers reading this, I know pregnancy can be tough – we are talking relative effort here). A gay couple has to either jump through the hoops of the adoption process, undergo IVF or engage in sexual activity thoroughly abhorrent to them. It requires commitment comparable only to an infertile heterosexual couple. Therefore an unwanted child is a rarity in a gay marriage. This immediately gives these children a parenting advantage over heterosexual couple who seemingly breed indiscriminately but have no intention of being an adequate parent. It also means that the only valid comparison is between the development of children from Gay and from low-fertility heterosexual marriages, preferably using hard epidemiological data, rather than “exit” interviews.
Of course, it is perfectly valid to suggest that, even if children of gay couples did not do as well as those of low-fertility heterosexual couples, they still would do better than the children of a large number of heterosexual unions. But that is the difference between a social observation and a scientific one. Judging from the confusion of children from gay marriages regarding heterosexual relationships as recorded by Prof Goldberg in her studies, it seems likely that this is not merely a matter of splitting scientific hairs, but one of importance. It may well be that the children of same-sex unions have long-term problems in heterosexual relationships. The result of this could certainly be further damage to the traditional structure of the family, in the form of fewer heterosexual unions. This may also be complete baloney.
It would be nice to approach this matter with solid data. I for one have no particular wish to give gays a hard time over marriage or childrearing. But society relies on a preponderance of heterosexual relationships in order to function properly. It is important not to endanger that for all of our sakes, including the sake of the gay community.
Related posts:
- Gay Adoption There is lots of colourful debate about this issue, both...
- The Cost of Family Breakdowns A new report from New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER)...
- Unnatural An HoS article on the sexual incontinence of famous men...
- When Will NZ be Modern? This is the question asked of Helen Clark by a...
- Spam Journalism #73 Spam Journalism: The spurious use of sensational headlines to add...
Nov 6 09 9:27 pm
Thats already endanger MacD – Gay marriage is just the latest assault on the institution, its real purpose to minimize the importance of marriage and healthy human relationships. in raising the next generation.
The origin of many of these pernicious ideas was the Italian communist Antonio Gramsci who realized after he returned to Italy after participating Russian revolution that western Europe would not revolt and remake society because the vast majority were too contented and the key to bringing about the revolutionary changes he sought was to capture the culture. He also saw that the most contented people in society were those with families who were also the least likely to seek change and be the most antithetical to the changes he would like to bring upon society.
Gramsci's ideas found their fullest expression in the English language where they were expressed as feminism – it is no accident that the earliest feminists were also marxists nor that they are amongst leaders in the charge for gay marriage despite decrying conventional marriage as a "patriarchal institution".
Of course the law of unintended consequences holds and all the implementation of Gramsci's ideas will bring is human degradation and misery – check out what the porn industry produces, itself another tool to cheapen human sexuality and hence human relationships, if you have any doubts.
And we know the real source of all this nonsense is the Adversary himself who wants to create as much human unhappiness as possible and will mislead people in anyway he can.
The people who promote these ideas are not evil in themselves they are just "useful idiots" serving as foot soldiers in an ancient war that they don't understand or even acknowledge exists in most cases.
Nov 7 09 1:23 am
I have taken a quick look at the author. It is not clear if she is a homosexual but I would be happy to bet that she is. That does not mean the “research” is bias but from past experience it most likely is. Most of these studies involve cherry picking adoptive children from wealthy homosexual activists and ignoring examples where things go wrong.
There are separate problems for children raised by male homosexuals and lesbians.
In the case of lesbians the children are often brought up to hate half the human race. This is bad enough in the case of girls but must be terrible for boys. I realise that I am generalising but it is a fact that many lesbians view men as the oppressors of woman. I know there are some who don’t but a significant number do.
In the case of male homosexuals there is a real danger of sexual abuse particularly in the case of adolescent boys. This would not necessarily be from the adoptive parents but friends or in the case of a relationship breakdown the new partner. This happens when heterosexual marriages of relationships breakdown. However, there are more social sanctions against sex with adolescents with heterosexuals. If a 40 year old male showed up at a function with a 16 year old girl he would not be well received. If a 40 year old male homosexual did the same he would not have the same problem.
I know that if I had the care of a young teenage boy there is no way I would let him stay overnight with couple of homosexuals who had adopted a child. While that may not be a great risk from them their friends may be another story. I am sure there are plenty of parents who would feel the same. This cannot be good for the adoptive children.
Homosexuals try to promote the myth that they behave just like heterosexuals except that they are attracted to someone of the same sex. This is simply not true on average. There are obviously exceptions but on average they have far more sexual partners, their relationships do not last as long and many of these relationships are non monogamous. This is evidenced by their much higher rates of STDs particularly HIV.
The criteria for adoption should be what is best for the child not what is going to make some minority group feel good. While there is no shortage of good heterosexual couples wanting to adopt, homosexual adoption should not be considered.
For an alternative view check the following links.
http://www.gayconspiracy.co.uk/page44.html
http://www.dawnstefanowicz.org/
Nov 7 09 4:19 am
While postulating that a lesbian couple would teach their children to be man-haters is logical, I'm not sure if their is any real evidence of this. Of course, there is probably no evidence to the contrary either, which is my basic point in the post – this lack of facts.
The same holds true for the suggestion that children of male gay couples are at risk of sexual abuse. It sounds like it should be true, but the facts are scanty.
I do wonder whether the apparent lack of facts is due to indirect discouragement of research in these matters. I would imagine that an application for a grant to study the level of sexual child abuse amongst children of gay couples would meet with rejection from most politically correct funding sources.
Nov 7 09 8:09 am
Hi MacDoctor
I had a look on you blog about yourself. It did not say when you came to New Zealand. I recall from your comments it was not that long ago. I came here in 1966 and have been most of the time since.
Like most people my opinions are based on what I read, personal experience and logic. I do not know any study that says what most lesbians think of men. However, after I got divorced about twenty-five years ago I have spoken to a lot of divorced men. A small percentage of them have had their ex-wives take up with another women. I base some of my opinion on talking to them. Around that time there was a newspaper called Broadsheet. It was a lesbian feminist newspaper – mainly lesbian. It went on about the patriarchy and how men oppressed women. In any case I believe many militant lesbians are very much anti male although I cannot point to research.
In the case of children of male gay couples are being at risk of sexual abuse there is much more research although probably indirect as for reason you pointed out. I will go from memory and not link every source if that is all right.
I hope you may be aware of studies that show that about 1 in 4 girls are sexually abused and about 1 in 7 boys are as well. The vast majority of both boys and girls are abused by men. The number of homosexuals and bisexual males in the population is less than 5% at the most. Therefore without doing the arithmetic it should be obvious that boys are much more at risk from homosexual or bisexual males.
While some children are sexually abused by women a disproportionate number are abused by men. To keep children safe from sexual abuse the solution could be to keep children away from men. While this may reduce sexual abuse a little it would have obvious downside.
While children are sexually abused by homosexuals disproportionately I cannot see the downside for children if they are not allowed to be adopted by homosexuals. This may make homosexuals feel bad and it is unfair on the majority of homosexuals who do not abuse children but children’s welfare should come first. There are of course other reasons why homosexuals do not make ideal adoptive parents.
I hope you have a look at the links I posted. I think if you read Dawn Stefanowicz’s book you might change your views.
Nov 14 09 5:36 pm
Macdoctor, there is a significant body of sociological and psychiatric research on homosexuality- that we know little of the results of this research is due to concerted efforts by all parties in favour of homosexuality to act as if this research has never existed.
A more reasonable resource on homosexuality is the US National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) site, which has a membership of over 1000 US psychiatrists.
http://www.narth.com/
It fundamentally promotes the point of view that reparative therapy for both male and female homosexuality has been used successfully for a very long time, results in beneficial change for those who undergo it (whether they chose to remain homosexual or decide to enter into heterosexual relationships afterwards), and has much sociological research in its favour (going back further than a century).
“What research shows- NARTH’s response to the APA’s claims on homosexuality”.
http://www.narth.com/docs/journalsummary.html